Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

These are sources used for many articles, i.e. Nehor to provide the official church interpretation of doctrine. Should we keep these? ~2026-60139-9 (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Why not? We have tons of articles on various spiritual and religous figures, personages and other things. What does it matter if it's part of a church's doctrine? We keep plenty of Catholicism errata too. Because it's Mormon doesn't mean anything (what the religion is never does). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Because they are owned by the church, they aren't independent? ~2026-60254-7 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

By definition, the dependent source is the most reliable source for the subject's own views. So a BYU-affiliated source or actually the BYU itself would be the most reliable source for the BYU's own statements/views. Independence is a criterium for determining WP:DUE and WP:NPOV-related matters, not reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Its a statement of what Mirmons believe, not what BYU believes. ~2026-10026-82 (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Of interest to this discussion is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement/Sources which provides this guidance: "Formerly named Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture. While not an official organ of the LDS Church, many contributors to the journal are employed by the church. Scholarship is not mainstream. Should only be used when presenting a particular viewpoint within the LDS Church, or non-controversial such as a pronunciation guide of Book of Mormon names." Epachamo (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Discovery Institute fiveby(zero) 18:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I've been editing the article on Naoki Higashida, a Japanese man with severe autism to whom more than twenty books have been attributed, most notably The Reason I Jump. The article is the subject of an ongoing dispute on the talk page about how to handle the authorship question. The full discussion is at Talk:Naoki_Higashida#Recent_rewrite.

The core issue: Higashida's earlier communication methods ("hand-supported writing" and "letter-tracing") involved physical contact with a facilitator, which is characteristic of facilitated communication (FC), widely rejected as pseudoscience. He later transitioned to an alphabet grid with no physical contact, but this method still involves a transcriber present and has not been independently validated. Several researchers (Fein & Kamio 2014, Lilienfeld et al. 2014, Beals 2022, Simmons et al. 2021) have questioned whether Higashida is the actual author of the works published under his name. On the other side, some academics (Heyworth et al. 2022 in Frontiers in Psychology, Woodfield & Freedman 2021 in Philosophical Inquiry in Education) assert he has demonstrated independent authorship, though neither conducted controlled testing. Temple Grandin, writing in a peer-reviewed journal, concluded the book was his own work but noted there should have been more documentation.

Of course, just because a journal is peer-reviewed does not mean that it must be reliable for Wikipedia.

The editorial question: Many mainstream non-academic reliable sources (The Economist, NYT, Time, NHK, Japan Times, Forbes Japan) treat Higashida straightforwardly as the author without evaluating the communication method. User:FactOrOpinion reverted my changes and raised concerns on the talk page, arguing among other things that the "attributed to" framing throughout the article violates NPOV by removing everything that accepts any statement as coming from Higashida. I believe that given the scientific consensus against FC and the lack of independent validation of his current method, the article should use more cautious language throughout (e.g., "attributed to" rather than "written by"), consistent with how a similar article on Amy Sequenzia was handled at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Sequenzia_(2nd_nomination) (that article was ultimately deleted for BLP concerns related to FC-based communication; User:Alsee's response there is particularly relevant).

Looking for input on how WP:FRINGE applies here - specifically, how much weight the non-academic RS treatment of Higashida as author should carry given the scientific concerns about the communication method. Sfdlkgj (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. If this article should remain, then it should do so with the verbiage you previously used before FactOrOpinion reverted everything.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naoki_Higashida&oldid=1338025129] Yes, I understand that rs has claimed that Higashida is the author, but those rs are not understanding that what they are witnessing is Facilitated Communication. It is like when JAMA reported that Havana Syndrome was a real phenomenon, completely ignoring the experts explaining that it had all the hallmarks of mass psychogenic illness. For months, editors went with the targeted microwave machine (which there was no evidence existed) and not the clearer explanation. With Higashida, the media reporting his authorship are making the same mistake JAMA did, there has been no previous user of FC that has gone on to become an independent communicator, if it were to happen, the world would know. It would be in science and medical journals around the world. For a rs that has no expertise of FC and a motivation to report feel-good narratives to the public to have more weight than the world of experts on FC is unconscionable. Sgerbic (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree if your points as a whole. I will contribute more tomorrow. Sfdlkgj (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Some of the issues involved:

• Did Higashida ever use FC? AFAIK, no researcher has said this. Fein and Kamio asked that question, but did not give a firm answer, though they did say that the method was "strikingly reminiscent" to FC without describing the similarities.
• Re: "Higashida's earlier communication methods ("hand-supported writing" and "letter-tracing") involved physical contact with a facilitator, which is characteristic of facilitated communication (FC)," an adult cupping their hand around a child's hand while the child is learning to write is also characteristic for lots of kids who are beginning to learn to write. In addition to "He later transitioned to an alphabet grid with no physical contact, but this method still involves a transcriber present," there is video with Higashida (1) using an alphabet grid with no physical contact or transcription, where he voices the sound of the letter he's pointing to as he spells out a word, (2) using an alphabet grid with no physical contact and where he is transcribing, and (3) typing on a computer with no physical contact and no transcription is needed. Here is video from an hour-long documentary showing these, from ~5:56 through ~12:39 (admittedly, not a great video for our purposes, as it spends a lot of time on his face or without a wide angle). A bit of this is also excerpted in English here. Is all of this equivalent to FC? I don't think so.
• Is FC a fringe theory or is it instead a minority theory that is still researched in the field? A quote from @Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan in a recent AfD on Ido Kedar, another autistic author who used RPM and now types without contact with anyone on an iPad:

  I am an autism researcher [...] I think it is a big exaggeration to say that assisted typing methods such as FC/RPM/S2C are clearly established as pseudoscience in this field... On the contrary, it's something that is very much actively debated by many of my colleagues. While there is indeed plenty of evidence of FC messages being authored falsely, there's also a variety of sources of evidence suggesting that assisted typing methods can sometimes be effective. Some of those lines of evidence are discussed in this very recent article: Jaswal, V. K., Prizant, B. M., Barense, M. D., Patten, K., & Stobbe, G. (2026). Why We Need to Study Assisted Methods to Teach Typing to Nonspeaking Autistic People. Autism Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.70176
  So, clearly FC at least - and quite possibly all of these methods - are dangerous and there's good reasons to be hesitant about endorsing them as ideal practice, but that doesn't mean that they never work or that they never have worked... Very different questions.
  Also, who says that Kedar only communicates via RPM? I was under the impression that he has been able to communicate independently for many years, which would obviously make it much more difficult to argue that his communications are invalid. ASHA did specifically note that its position statement doesn't apply to people who can type independently, as then no question of facilitator influence arises.
  So, there seem to be several questions here:
  1. Does Kedar only communicate with RPM (or other kinds of controversial assisted typing methods)?
  2. If Kedar only communicates with RPM, could we safely conclude from this that his communications are definitely invalid? [...]

He asks a third question that focuses more on deletion and then gives his answers. Here's the excerpt from the ASHA position statement on FC that he referenced: "This position statement on FC does not pertain to independent typing without 'facilitator' influence." I realize that that comment was about Kedar, but I think if you replace Kedar with Higashida and RPM with FC, his comment touches on relevant issues. Much of the research has been limited (e.g., I don't think any of it followed participants longitudinally, I don't think any of it researched anyone who was typing without physical contact), and when blind tests were carried out with FC, a small number of participants did pass the test. Could they be false positives? Sure, but they could also be true positives and indicate that FC can be effective for a small minority of people. Or perhaps there are other differences in the two groups (passed vs. failed) that weren't explored by the researchers.

• Re: "independent validation," is Higashida responsible for seeking out a researcher to test him, or are researchers responsible for asking him to participate in research? Is it reasonable for WP to require independent validation of someone's writing if they ever used a method that has some relationship to FC?

FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Facilitated Communication, Rapid Prompting Method, Spelling to Communicate and so on are all established by scientific consensus to be pseudoscience. The burden of proof is on these people who say they are doing something impossible, not on the science community to disprove. Higashida cannot seek out a researcher to test him, he is not independently communicating.

If a psychic medium says that she is communicating with Albert Einstein and has new insight into his personal life, and the media picks up that story and relays it as fact. Then using your argument we should change the Einstein Wikipedia article to reflect what the medium said. Sgerbic (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

"Facilitated Communication, Rapid Prompting Method, Spelling to Communicate and so on are all established by scientific consensus to be pseudoscience." Is the "and so on" supposed to address Higashida's methods of communication, which are none of FC, RPM or S2C? I dare you to cite any research claiming that the methods Higashida is actually using are pseudoscience.

I continue to find it a clear BLP vio for you to analogize this to "psychic mediums" (and elsewhere to Clever Hans). I've said so before. Do I really need to gather all of your comparisons together and go to AE with it? Stop already.

You haven't presented a single example of "a psychic medium says that she is communicating with Albert Einstein and has new insight into his personal life, and the media picks up that story and relays it as fact," so don't pretend that it's analogous, much less that the consequent in your conditional is "using [my] argument" as that's BS. There are lots of media who are reporting him as the author, and in many cases, they've met with him.

You're the one claiming "they are doing something impossible". You cannot even bring yourself to address the fact that in the controlled tests of FC, a small number of people passed the test. Were they doing the impossible too? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The question isn't whether Higashida's current method is literally FC, RPM, or S2C, it's whether it has been independently validated. His earlier methods were clearly FC-adjacent (physical contact with a facilitator), and his current method still involves a transcriber present. The fact that no named technique maps exactly onto what he does now doesn't mean the scientific concerns about facilitator influence disappear.

Regarding the controlled tests where a small number passed, that's a fair point to raise in the scientific literature, but 2 out of 8 in a single study is not strong enough evidence to overturn the broader consensus. And more to the point, Higashida himself has never undergone such testing, so we don't know which group he'd fall into.

Finally I agree with you that the psychic medium analogy might be going too far. Sfdlkgj (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

No, the question is whether there's any research at all on the methods he actually uses, instead of assuming "oh, it's close enough to FC, so let's just use the FC research to make assumptions about his communication." As I noted above, among his forms of communication: typing on a computer with no transcriber, using a letterboard with no transcriber, and using a letterboard where he then transcribes what he said himself.

Whose responsibility is it to independently validate his communication? Researchers. Has any researcher ever asked him to let them test him? AFAIK, the answer is no. Has any researcher even looked at all of the video evidence? AFAIK, the answer is no. Fein and Kamio explicitly noted that they never met with him and give no indication that they tried to meet with him. Beals claims that "There is, however, no evidence that any of the above-cited individuals is able to communicate without a facilitator within cueing range," but she is totally silent about how she went looking for video evidence. She also says nothing about having contacted him to see whether he'd be open to a test.

Re: "2 out of 8 in a single study is not strong enough evidence to overturn the broader consensus," I'm not trying to overturn the consensus and didn't suggest otherwise; I was pointing out that if the claim is: no one in the world has ever passed a message under controlled conditions, and if they had, researchers would be flocking to them, then that's not the consensus and is clearly false. Also, I didn't say that that's the only study, only that it was an example where not all participants failed in blind message passing. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

On the video evidence: Fein and Kamio explicitly reviewed video of Higashida. That's how they observed his mother touching his shoulder, back, and leg during his communication. So "has any researcher even looked at all of the video evidence? AFAIK, the answer is no" isn't accurate. You could argue they didn't review enough video, but that's different from claiming no researcher has looked at it.

On whose responsibility it is to seek validation: I understand the frustration, but that's not the Wikipedia question. We write articles based on what reliable sources currently support, not based on what research should have been done. WP:FRINGE says "if proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance." The absence of controlled testing may not be Higashida's fault, but it's still the state of the evidence, and the article should reflect that.

On the controlled tests: fair enough, I misunderstood your point. Sfdlkgj (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Fein and Kamio don't say what video they looked at, but the date couldn't have been any later than 2014. They do not say what it was comprised of, only that it was "him with his mother" (interacting with any other people? we don't know; taken by whom? we don't know; filmed in what year? we don't know; ...). We do know that that omits all of the video of him from 2015 onward, including the videos I've referred to / linked to above. So they couldn't possibly have looked at all of the video evidence. Did they look at all of the available video of him from 2014 or earlier? Almost certainly not. For example, if they'd looked at the video of him in Wretches & Jabberers (released in 2011), they likely would have identified the film by name; nor would I describe the video of him in that film primarily as "him with his mother," even though she was one of the people present.

"You could argue they didn't review enough video..." Right. When I wrote "has any researcher even looked at all of the video evidence?", I meant what I said: all. I did not ask whether any researcher had looked at some unspecified subset of existing video, as it's clear that Fein and Kamio did so.

Re: whether it falls under FRINGE, you still haven't addressed the central issue: did he ever use FC? If so, is he still using FC? Again, the ASHA position statement clearly says "This position statement on FC does not pertain to independent typing without 'facilitator' influence." What is your evidence that he is being influenced by his mother? Has there ever been any FC research that only involves touch on the back or leg? AFAIK, the answer is no; if I'm wrong about that, just cite the research. If not, we shouldn't presume that such touch is able to cue the creation of complex text; moreover, there's plenty of video evidence of him where there is no physical contact. Please explain why you do not consider that "independent typing." FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The core issue is that someone diagnosed with severe, non-verbal autism is claimed to have authored complex literary works - essays, fiction, poetry - in over twenty books. This is an extraordinary claim by any measure. As the old saying goes "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Uncontrolled video, regardless of how much of it exists, does not meet that standard.

Fein and Kamio reviewed available evidence and raised concerns. The fact that additional video exists from after their 2014 paper doesn't invalidate their analysis. If newer evidence resolves the question, that would be welcome... but it would need to come through the kind of rigorous evaluation that hasn't yet occurred. Sfdlkgj (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

First, I already pointed out that Fein and Kamio likely ignored existing video (that is, video that existed at the time). Second, you have no idea what kind of video they looked at; in all likelihood, it was just as "uncontrolled" as the rest of it. So why are you accepting the video they looked at while rejecting other video? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, what are your best source(s) for this, ones affirmatively stating Higashida is the author. Just the two article sources mentioned in your initial post? There are some very good reasons to question the reliability of those two. Got anything else? fiveby(zero) 14:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I assume you meant Sfdlkgj's initial post. I'd probably choose the documentaries What You Taught Me About My Son and What You Taught Me About Happiness. If it weren't for the fact that it's not an independent source, I'd also choose this interview with David Mitchell (the full audio, not the abbreviated written version). There are lots of reviews that state he's the author, including reviews in professional or research journals (e.g., The Lancet), but I assume that's not what you're looking for.

I don't know that the research is strong on either side. None of it draws on all of the relevant evidence that was publicly available at the time of publication, and much of it seems to assume that he's using some variant of FC, which videos show isn't accurate. Fein and Kamio draw on video and a lecture in uncontrolled settings, so if you reject other uncontrolled data, you have to reject the data they drew on too, and vice versa: if it's OK for them to use data from uncontrolled settings, then others should be allowed to too. Same with Simmons et al. Beals barely mentions Higashida, only to note that there's "no evidence that any of the above-cited individuals is able to communicate without a facilitator within cueing range," but with no evidence that one can cue complex text visually, and no info about how she searched for relevant evidence. Lilienfeld et al. falsely claimed that there was no video evidence available in 2014, even after noting that he appeared in Wretches & Jabberers, falsely calling his appearance a "cameo," when it's about 1/3 of the film. They even say "The book asserts that Higashida has since learned to type independently using a computer and letter board (assisted by a 'helper' who transcribes his communications), but these claims are difficult to evaluate without videotaped footage, which is unavailable as of this writing," ignoring the videotaped evidence in W & J. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

My essay at WP:YWAB says "* We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication." If anyone here thinks that is wrong, please explain why at User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. This is a widely quoted essay, I want to make sure I am getting it right. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

But is he using FC, and what is the basis for your answer? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

What "controlled tests" are you talking about? Are these tests controlled and not run by supporters of FC? Seriously, let's see these controlled tests. Sgerbic (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

An example:

Crews, W. D., Sanders, E. C., Hensley, L. G., Johnson, Y. M., Bonaventura, S., Rhodes, R. D., & Garren, M. P. (1995). An evaluation of facilitated communication in a group of nonverbal individuals with mental retardation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25(2), 205–213.

No, not run by FC supporters. 6 of the 8 participants failed message passing; 2 of the 8 succeeded with some message passing. False positives? I don't know. You don't either.

It's the reason that you see Fein and Kamio say "In virtually every case in which the facilitator was blind to the questions posed to the individual, the individual was unable to answer the questions independently" (emphasis added) instead of "In every case ...," or Mostert say "Facilitated Communication (FC) had largely been empirically discredited as an effective intervention for previously uncommunicative persons with disabilities, especially those with autism and related disorders" (emphasis added) instead of something like "completely empirically discredited." FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Personally, I think Temple Grandin has more authority than any of y'all here. Silverseren^C 02:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  She does, but only because we have absolutely no authority beyond any that comes from the reliable sources we cite. Being autistic does not make her infallible. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Her autism has nothing to do with the issue. Temple Grandin, as a published academic on the topic of the book and its authorship, is of high authority in regards to reliable sources. It sounds like those above are trying to use the existence of the generally lower quality news sources to claim unreliability for the article, while actively ignoring the already noted in article fact that there is a legitimate rift in the academic community on the topic of this person and their book. It is that disparity in opinion that should be properly represented. To try and purposefully bias the article toward one side of that academic split (and to make claims about the subject that even that side isn't stating, as noted by FactOrOpinion) is to violate both NPOV and our reliable sourcing policies and guidelines. This is clearly a situation of editors trying to input their personal opinion into the article instead of following what the reliable sources say. Silverseren^C 23:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  We're out of step though, aren't we? On all our pages about FC we stress that it is absolute fringe science and nothing produced through it is actually from the person in question, but then we have an article on a person who uses FC and we treat it like it is a valid communications process. One of these is wrong. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  As repeatedly brought up by FactOrOpinion, what sources even confirm the subject was using FC? There were concerns raised about the possibility of that, even by Grandin, but she explicitly went and confirmed otherwise. If anything, FC seems out of topic for this subject outside of the original questioning being noted and the refutation of the claim being made by multiple academics. Silverseren^C 01:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think that if editors were strictly following our reliable sourcing policies and guidelines then at least two of the sources supporting authorship (Heyworth, Chan & Lawson 2022;Woodfield & Freedan 2021) would be removed from the article. Grandin is probably the best of a bad lot and she is an animal behavior specialist publishing a short review in a magazine intended for a general audience. fiveby(zero) 03:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  That makes sense to me! Sfdlkgj (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't like saying that things are fringe but Facilitated Communication is fringe. For as much as we can say within the field the scientific debate is over. done. Overwhelming weight of reliable sources. There are two pro-fringe sources cited in the article: they do not examine the question of authorship but simply assert such and use Higashida as an example to promote FC.

But this is a different article and there is no scientific debate, there cannot be, but we manufacture one in the article. It's the usual product of NPOV and RSN: "some researchers say this and some researchers say that." Cherry-picking quotes and it is OK because we've attributed them in-text: never mind reading, understanding, and summarizing the sources. Unless there is something i haven't seen no one has researched the question.

Although it is impossible to answer this question with certainty, there is sufficient reason to doubt that Naoki is in fact the independent creator of the book’s eloquent prose.

It would be extremely easy to provide assurance that Naoki has the capacity to write prose of this level of sophistication

Both quotes from Fein & Kamio. Sufficient doubt for them to tell of the dangers to children and families, the whole purpose of their article which we've neglected. But why can't the extremely easy thing be done? It's not that it would be difficult to answer or have potentially ambiguous results with different interpretations. We don't need further video evidence, or more interpretations of existing evidence. They don't lack the ability to answer the question, they lack the opportunity to answer it. There is a moral assertion from our fringe sources and briefly in what i've seen from Mitchell. Something along these lines: Higashida is a human being, not a test subject. We should assume competence. It is an injustice to demand a test. Also further assertions which implicate fringe issues with autism. Can of worms.

There are obvious other fringe issues which i think Sfdlkgj tried to address in his edit such as how far to trust Mitchell in describing Higashida's abilities. But if the article continues to address the question of authorship as a question which can be answered by gathering more sources and more evidence from supposed "researchers" i think we are leading the reader astray. Also, if that's the case, then FactOrOpinion is correct to point out deficiencies in Fein & Kamio, unexamined evidence and no answer to whether this is FC or not. I think the article should go no farther than our best source, can't answer the question but some very good reasons to doubt. Present those reasons and the foreseen dangers. Stop there. Going further does not inform the reader as to Higashida's ability to have written these works. Our best source has told us the scientific way to do that, and it's probably not going to happen. fiveby(zero) 15:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

By "stop there" i did not mean to exclude Grandin tho, present her opinion and the basis for her saying that. She relates the book to her own experience which is probably valuable.fiveby(zero) 15:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Overall thoughts: I think @Fiveby: has laid this out well. Based on the discussion, here's what I plan to do in a rewrite:

• Use Fein & Kamio as the anchor for the authorship dispute section, where I present their reasons for doubt and the dangers they identify, without trying to definitively resolve the question
• Keep Grandin's assessment and its basis
• Remove Heyworth et al. and Woodfield & Freedman as insufficiently rigorous sources on the authorship question
• Use cautious but not blanket "attributed to" language - I'm open to suggestions on exactly where this framing is and isn't appropriate
• Keep the article readable as a BLP

I'll give this a few days for feedback before editing. Sfdlkgj (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it's unfortunate that no one here has really engaged with the question of whether Higashida is using FC (even if he once did, which is itself an open question―as best I can tell, no one has researched his actual means of communication using an English alphabet to sound out and spell Japanese words), or if he is instead typing independently / independently using an alphabet grid. ASHA is clear that independent typing is not FC, and I've linked to video of him typing independently.

If you're going to remove Heyworth et al., then you need to remove Beals, which is a response to Heyworth and only devotes two brief sentences to several people including Highashida. I'd also remove Lilienfeld et al., which is vague about what they mean by "scientific documentation," and falsely claimed that no videotaped evidence of him typing independently was available at the time of publication. For the remaining two (Fein and Kamio, and Simmons et al.), I'd make it clear that they're commentary pieces, not research studies, and that Fein and Kamio focus entirely on the question of whether he wrote The Reason I Jump and do not address authorship for any of his other books (which include picture books for kids, there is also video of him drawing one of the pictures). I think Grandin also focuses entirely on whether he wrote The Reason I Jump.

If you're going to use "attributed to," then you should make clear who the attribution comes from (e.g., the publisher, the translators, lots of book reviewers, interviewers).

Re: Fiveby's statement, "They don't lack the ability to answer the question, they lack the opportunity to answer it," AFAIK, they have never asked to meet with him. So I put this on the researchers; they're not going to have the opportunity if they don't ask. And from what I've read of Mitchell, his primary response is that he's spoken with Higashida in person more than once and seen him communicate independently, and that there is video of Higashida doing so, so he doesn't understand why people are so doubtful; he's read about FC and notes that no one is touching Higashida when he types / uses the letter grid, and he dismisses the claim that Higashida is using FC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Some fair points here. I agree that the article should be clear that Fein & Kamio and Grandin focus on The Reason I Jump specifically, and that the commentary/research distinction should be noted.

On source removal: removing Heyworth et al. and removing Beals aren't symmetrical situations. Heyworth et al. is being used to support an extraordinary claim (independent authorship) without rigorous evidence. Beals aligns with the broader scientific position on FC. Per WP:PARITY, the standard for sources supporting fringe-adjacent claims is higher than for sources aligned with mainstream consensus.

On Lilienfeld: a factual error about available video is worth noting, but doesn't invalidate their broader observation about the lack of scientific documentation. I'm open to qualifying how they're cited rather than removing them.

I'll incorporate the constructive suggestions - specifying who attributes, clarifying the scope of Fein & Kamio and Grandin, and noting that these are commentaries rather than research studies. Sfdlkgj (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I've read Naoki Higashida with the edits you made earlier today, and feel comfortable with that compromise, thanks. That said, re: Beals ("There is, however, no evidence that any of the above-cited individuals is able to communicate without a facilitator within cueing range") and Lilienfeld et al. ("there is at present no scientific documentation of Higashida's achievements"), it's hard for me to trust people who say that there's no evidence for X but are absolutely silent about how they searched for evidence of X. We have zero way of knowing that their search was comprehensive. It's routine for people writing a review of research, for example, to present their search terms and search spaces, and this deserves as much forthrightness/detail as that. Also, for Beals, I know of no research that shows that it's possible for someone within range to visually cue someone else to write complex text in the absence of an actual sign language, and I doubt that this is broadly accepted in the field. Are you aware of any such research? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

This sign language thing keeps coming up but is a red herring. Sign language are well understood as languages and anyone who knows the specific sign language can understand what the person signing is saying. In fact nowadays there does not need to be anyone in visual range. If we're talking about one way communication, the person communicating can sign what they're communicating with absolutely zero feed back from anyone else in front of a video camera and anyone who understands the specific sign language can at any time understand what the person communicating said. By comparison FC generally (not commenting about Higashida since I know too little about his case) need a facilitator with experience with the specific individual to be able to relay what is alleged being said. The interpreter cannot simply train someone to read the FC communicator without the FC communicator being involved, such a thing doesn't even make sense since we're not talking about a language that anyone can use. So it's not possible someone simply trained to understand what the FC communicator is saying without relying in the interpreter. It's not possible for the FC communicator to communicate without them being able to also at least do one of see, hear or feel the interpreter I.E. there does need to be two way communication for it to work. Nil Einne (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that sign language is a red herring, but to some extent it's also beside the point. You claim "It's not possible for the FC communicator to communicate without them being able to also at least do one of see, hear or feel the interpreter," and I'm asking for research showing that it's possible to communicate long-ish full sentences through sight alone (no oral communication, no touch, not using a sign language of the sort you describe, which is what I meant by "an actual sign language," e.g., ASL).

Even ignoring whether there's research, how are you proposing that a facilitator could visually communicate complex text to the autistic person doing the typing? For that matter, if Frank Friend and I were trying to do this, and we were both in on it, how are you proposing that Frank could visually communicate complex text to me? That is, what specifically could Frank and I work out so that Frank could then get me to type a random (not pre-arranged) sentence? FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

There's lots of trivial ways it could be done. For example, if the facilitator is holding the keyboard they might be moving it so that the patient's random movements land where it makes the most sense to the facilitator. They might even do this honestly thinking they were helping in a neutral way. ApLundell (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking about a situation where Frank Friend isn't touching anything (not me, not a keyboard, not a letter board). I'm also not talking about something obvious, like signing an alphabet. I'm talking about a situation where it doesn't look to a casual observer that anything is happening, but an observer looking for it will be able to find/decipher it. I'd be interested in hearing your other "trivial" ways. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

FC is not science YouTube channel has many examples. Have you checked those videos out? It is not just someone holding a hand or arm, there are many ways to control the conversation. Remember, most of these teams are parent/child and have been doing FC for years. They might "graduate" to no touch, but the parent is still within view. Sgerbic (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh you skeptics. Have to go out and prove every magician a fraud! The approach to FC and authorship from the science if very clear: ensure that they are the authors of the messages generated using blind or double-blind procedures I think sometimes you allow the burden of proof to be shifted in order to educate those who did not get or ignored a basic education in science. Tough job. Sometimes leads to long talk page threads. fiveby(zero) 09:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I have an education in science, and science demands that you prove it's possible for one person to control the production of complex text by another person without having any physical contact (not with the person, not with a letter board or keyboard), without the obvious use of a sign language or sign alphabet. Those who say it's possible need to prove it. So far, people like Sgerbic have provided zero evidence for it, and haven't even proposed a hypothetical way that it could work using two people who have agreed to do it. This is not a matter of shifting the burden of proof. This is a matter of proving that the repeated claims that it's possible have some evidence. Did you notice that the Schlosser et al. review that you linked to doesn't attempt to address this? They say

Facilitated Communication (FC) (also described as “supported typing”) is a technique whereby individuals with disabilities and communication impairments allegedly select letters by typing on a keyboard while receiving physical support, emotional encouragement, and other communication supports from facilitators (CitationSyracuse, n.d.). Although it is acknowledged that FC also includes the pointing to pictures or objects, the focus of this review is on typing. According to the Institute on Communication and Community Inclusion (see CitationSyracuse, n.d.), the physical support may be provided at the index finger, hand, arm, elbow, or shoulder.

We're talking about "facilitation" without physical support. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I know! Isn't it hilarious! They've talked themselves into accepting your prove it's possible for one person to control the production of complex... or whatever demands your making. They like to disprove the magic trick. Science can just say there is no such thing as magic. Forty or fifty years of autism research and all the initial work done to discredit FC places the burden of proof squarely in the camp of the FC promoters. Skeptics do phenomenal work around here but they use words like 'woo' so i like to make fun of the every once in awhile. fiveby(zero) 13:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Who says that it's FC? Not Schlosser et al. Not the ASHA position statement on FC: "This position statement on FC does not pertain to independent typing without 'facilitator' influence." Not sure why you're assuming that it's FC despite that counterevidence. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I know! Ok, i was making a joke of it and should not have. I'm going from memory here as i've closed out all the tabs with the papers. There are a few reason we care about FC for Higashida. One is that some papers said the earlier communication methods looked like FC. I know you've been mentioning more evidence and later videos, but it is necessary content for the article. Fein & Kamio point out the same dangers to children and families in this case as that which was identified in earlier work on FC. Good content added to article. We had two fringe papers using Higashida as an example to promote FC. That content has been removed from the article. Fein & Kamio point out that accepting authorship in this case would call into question 40 years of autism research and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. With a little bit of OR on my part that is similar to FC's claims. Fein & Kamio clearly establish where the burden of proof lies for claiming Higashida has the capability for authorship: blind message passing test, same as for FC claims. And Fein & Kamio don't really even care so much if FC is involved or not. They doubt whether a 13 year old boy, FC or no, autistic or not could have written that prose. Someone could have just made it up. But the dangers to children and families are the same in either case.

"Science" as in the autism and communication researchers have done their work. Except when someone pops up and gets published using Higashida as a case to promote FC. Then you get for example Beals 2022. Very clearly established where the burden of proof lies for both The Reason I Jump and FC. "Science" doesn't care a bit about later works, other videos which may be augmented communication of facilitated communication or whatever. Got other stuff on their plate.

But skeptics i think are educators, and they often accept a shift in the burden of proof. Find the hidden wires, prove that wasn't a bigfoot track, prove this lump of rock was not dropped here by space aliens cause i think it looks kinda weird. And i think that is what everyone is still doing here, trying to prove this possible control or whatever when the burden of proof is on you.

So why is this thread still going on when the article content has been taken care of? And that was the joke. Tough job. Sometimes leads to long talk page threads. I guess pretty lame if i had to type that much to explain it. fiveby(zero) 16:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

"Fein & Kamio point out that accepting authorship in this case would call into question 40 years of autism research" But they leave readers wondering what part of autism research they're referring to. "Fein & Kamio clearly establish where the burden of proof lies for claiming Higashida has the capability for authorship." Yet they didn't even bother to meet with him, much less ask him if he'd participate in a blind message-passing test. Whose responsibility is it to initiate that? Do you expect Higashida to go waving his arms, saying "test me, test me!"? The onus on researchers to contact him and ask, not on him to contact them. "Beals 2022. Very clearly established where the burden of proof lies" And she doesn't ask him to particpate in research either. It's so much easier for her to just say "There is, however, no evidence that any of the above-cited individuals is able to communicate without a facilitator within cueing range," without making any effort to gather evidence, and without providing a shred of research evidence that this kind of visual cuing is possible. And that is why this thread has continued: because some people want to include Beals in the article, and absent any research at all that what she's proposing is possible, I strongly object to that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Well i'm pissed i can't get any physicists to come and look at my space alien rock or look at the evidence on my youtube channel. fiveby(zero) 19:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

SMH if you think that's analogous. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I opened a BLPN discussion here. In her 2025 book she wrote about recovering memories of being sexually abused through the use of MDMA with an apparently non-professional "facilitator" acting as a therapist. --Hipal (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE mess made up by woo pro-UFO user who just disrupted another UFO related AFD this week which also requires eyes retroactively.

Hyper emphasizes grift fake claims of free propulsion and made up tech. Last AFD somehow failed.

Needs urgent eyes, page is a massive hot fire. ~2026-12997-95 (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The only way to get "urgent eyes" on this is to tell us what the fuck you are talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

You should probably tag the person who your baseless assertions are targeted towards. @Very Polite Person. And I don't see how this is fringe at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I had an editor forcibly "call me out" on WP:ANI for editing it and saying I was planning on improving it. I was already well into User:Very Polite Person/draft/Field propulsion at that point, and more lost edits on my sandbox. My local folders for this are stuffed. I'm easily nearing 1k+ actual edits to it. Fears of spooky "UFO stuff" apparently. Apparently a weird number of skeptics and scientists think modern/cutting edge/in development aerospace engineering... is bullshit? It's irrational. I have seen this almost exclusively from people in academic career tracks, like folks who worry about citation counts and such. My only theory is that since I have taken shit over this in the past as a "UFO" thing; I'll say it's irrational ignorance.

This is presumnably OP's hang up, is not and is in no way WP:FRINGE: Field propulsion#Field propulsion based on physical structure of space. It's an article about the evolving century-plus history of an entire domain of technology: "move stuff via energy without chemical fuel". It's 100% real, it's up in space as you read this; multiple types! So of course the article will mention at the end the heavy R&D stuff, which is a tiny section of the massive article. It would be a WP:DUE violation to exclude, and you'd be a buffoon to even call those things fringe today.No mention of aliens either... but yes, that'll be in the future Pop culture section (because the article even flat out says already that it appears in fiction).

Anyone's welcome to edit and read it.

It's (literally) not rocket science. Rocket science is 1000 years old. It's way fuckin cooler and newer. And in no way WP:FRINGE. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

A quick perusal of the article and the sources indicate nothing really of FRINGE concerns. Actual engineering published in good reputable journals, examples of the various technologies in actual deployment, the section of the depiction of such in media is well sourced and for those that are fantastical it doesn't portray as being real, and in theorised technologies it seems to give appropriate weight and framing (though this I am much less certain on as this is well within physics which I already don't touch generally as a broad subject). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think I'm doing, but you need to actually keep up with modern science. As in, like things being built right now in factories, plants, hangars, Jet Propulsion Labarotory and foreign equivalents. These "fake" things are in space right now, by the thousand. We launch more each week.

You're responsible to keep up with what is real or not. What are you, Tommaso Caccini? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Less aggression, please. It can be frustrating working on fringe topics, but we need to treat everyone with civility and respect. Especially if they believe in fringe theories.

There are indeed fringe/pseudoscience methods of space propulsion that purportedly don't require any reaction mass. Examples include EmDrive and Dean Drive. But Electrodynamic tethers and Solar sails also exist and are not fringe. I only see the latter in Field propulsion. Not Fringe. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This comment at AfD isn't "disruptive". Some of VPP's edits to the AfD article are clear improvements. Even adding in the BLP subject's flimsy explanation for why the patents have never been demonstrated seems fine, and even if it seemed bogus, the next step would be to remove it or start a talk page discussion. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Back in mainspace, for the interested. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination) was some time ago, and better sources may have popped up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Jitterati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Brand new account (at least going by edit dates), and has been on a tear adding stuff related to TCM. A couple of the edits I checked seem to be LLM-generated, complete with ISBN errors, but I don't know this stuff at all, and most of the sources are in Chinese. It feels a bit off, and their contribs could use some scrutiny. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am the editor in question. I appreciate the scrutiny and would like to address the concerns raised here.

The content I added was not generated by a large language model. All text was directly translated and summarized from authoritative, nationally standardized Chinese medical university textbooks (全国高等中医药院校规划教材). These are the official textbooks used across all traditional Chinese medicine universities in China, published by China Press of Traditional Chinese Medicine (中国中医药出版社) and People's Medical Publishing House (人民卫生出版社). The specific books include: Gao Xuemin (高学敏), ed., Zhongyao Xue [Chinese Materia Medica], 2002 (ISBN 978-7-80156-318-7); Sun Guangren (孙广仁), ed., Zhongyi Jichu Lilun [Basic Theory of Traditional Chinese Medicine], 2002 (ISBN 978-7-80156-323-1); Deng Zhongjia (邓中甲), ed., Fangji Xue [Science of Formulas], 2003 (ISBN 978-7-80156-322-4); and others in the same nationally standardized series. These are not obscure sources. They are the standard educational references for TCM in China, comparable to how Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine is standard for Western medical education.

The ISBN errors in my first round of edits were simple transcription mistakes from copying digits off physical books. I identified these errors myself and made a second round of edits to correct all of them, as can be seen in my contribution history. This is a normal part of the editing process.

The sources are primarily in Chinese because the most authoritative references on traditional Chinese medicine are naturally Chinese-language publications. This is no different from citing French-language sources for topics in French intellectual history or German-language sources for topics in German philosophy.

I am happy to provide specific page references from these textbooks for any passage that is questioned. I welcome constructive review and collaboration to improve the accuracy of these articles. Jitterati (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you have been systematically removing sourced content from articles? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Obvious LLM is obvious...I've had enough. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that this editor is using an LLM to generate their content, but even if they're not, by their own admission each one of their submissions has contained serious careless errors. If the content was created with so little care, by man or machine, that's enough reason to revert it. ApLundell (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not ANI, take it there. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It's fine here. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 17:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Those sources are also unlikely to meet WP:MEDRS... ~2026-10830-00 (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

There is an edit war in the Cuban underwater formation article over the removal of the "pseudoarchaeology category". One IP editor insists on repeatedly removing it. Paul H. (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Added to watch list. Donald Albury 17:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Have any genuine archaeologists studied this? If so the article should be based on their findings, rather than credulous press reports. If not the category is correct. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Given that all of the sources in the article are newspaper stories spanning from late 2001 to late 2002, I think this is a clear fail of WP:SUSTAINED, so I have nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuban underwater formation. Please participate if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Even a 2014 article on the Ancient Origins site (which is blacklisted) states in the last sentence in the article that there was no follow-up investigation because, ...the story simply went cold and that in the end experts were not convinced that Zelitsky had really discovered a sunken city. Donald Albury 22:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean It's like 500 metres underwater, which is over 350 metres deeper than than the lowest sea level during Last Glacial Maximum, so hardly plausible to begin with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

But what if aquatic apes? (I jest) -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Not on any specific wiki-articles, but I recently saw this "article" pop up in my email alerts for something entirely unrelated. If you want to see an odd exercise and stringing together odd jargon (so bad to the point I don't think it's AI even), it's an interesting read.

More to the point though, this is just a good reminder that Google Scholar is not always indexing reliable sources and sometimes gets very afar from that goal. This was an academia.edu upload, so really just self-published, but I'm seen a few cases in the last year of someone assuming because it was on Google Scholar it must be a good source, so this is maybe a good example of why that isn't the case if anyone ever needs it. KoA (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, creationism-linked articles are a nuisance in GScholar. Sometimes they also index Wikipedia mirrors but that's not so common. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Heh, my academia.edu notifications have been dominated for the past 5 years by two guys, one of whom is a historian of the middle east and an acknowledged expert in ancient middle eastern languages who simply cannot let anything wrong go uncorrected, and one guy who's a plumber (I'm not even joking) who think he's figured out a new way to translate Ugaritic, and simply cannot accept that he's wrong about anything.

It's essentially an unmoderated science forum that draws cranks looking for respectability, but it's also an easy way for legitimate paper authors to share pdfs and thereby cut down on the number of "can I get a copy of your paper?" emails they get, so it's not just cranks.

Just as with any other search engine, discretion is required when using goggle scholar. Papers hosted at academia.edu as well as multiple other sites, such as a number of pre-print hosts, simply aren't good sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Google Scholar tends to find many more reliable sources than a general Google search or Google News, but is not an indication in itself that a source is reliable. As MjolnirPants says, discetion is needed, just the same as with Google Books. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Aye, the completeness is the big advantage of GScholar. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 19:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't compare it to Google searches, but instead to other academic indexing services like Scopus (more selective than GS) and Web of Science (probably the most selective of journals). Not sure how much predatory open-access journals have drug all those down though. A lot of times if I see someone mentioning Google Scholar stats, I'll go to Web of Science for comparison that's often very different (but also me getting off the main subject here). Easier to find reviews citing a primary source too if that's the point of contention though on WoS. Both are good at filtering out the junk that GS includes though as well as much more minor journals that usually aren't carrying much weight (or IRL reliability for peer-review).

At the least, I've never seen anything this bad on Scopus or WoS, so if someone have access at least, it's often best to check those first before GS. KoA (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Errr, i don't think scholar crawls some major academic presses? Or does it? Seems like there's always more to find by going to WPLibrary. I don't think it picks up all from Cambridge, Oxford, or JSTOR, but maybe crawls Taylor & Francis? Would have to check. It crawls WP tho, so anything already linked from here or other sites it should have indexed. fiveby(zero) 01:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Google Scholar doesn't just crawl sites. Major academic presses maintain partnerships with, and direct feeds to, Google Scholar. I used to work for HighWire Press about 10 years ago, developing journal websites for several major academic publishers (mostly medical/bio journals, such as from SAGE, Royal Society, American Association for Cancer Research, and several others). Included in building a website for a new journal was to establish and maintain direct feeds to Google Scholar, PubMed, JSTOR, etc. I recall being in meetings with people from Google Scholar to discuss improvements. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't seem to get the search results that would be generated if all or most of the academic presses were following that procedure? Will have to pay more attention. It would be wonderful to have a single search engine, comprehensive and flexible and free. I seem to get overall more failure from scholar than success in finding sources, and use it for just a quick look. fiveby(zero) 10:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Google Scholar links all kinds of trash articles, tons of predatory articles come up with almost every search. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 08:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Gang stalking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some questionable changes to a stable consensus version by someone perhaps on a mission. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Not just 'questionable', but blatant cherry-picking, misrepresenting a description of how those who believe themselves to be victims of 'gang stalking' perceive it as an objective description of actual events. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought I was immune to this "triggering" that everyone is talking about these days, but just seeing the title of this section sent shivers down my spine. At least the article seems to have a half-decent lead now. Someone please keep an eye on this, because I tried to deal with this topic years ago and can't take any more. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist now. The Truth Is Out There. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The Terrible Trio of articles that for years have attracted particularly motivated editors and need constant watching: Gang stalking, Electronic harassment, Microwave auditory effect. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll add it to the other two. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 15:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Western esotericism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is about . Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Reported at WP:AIAV. Orbital strike in 3...2...1... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe in western esotericism. What’s so wrong with that? ~2026-16717-30 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked the TA for a week for edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I did the initial reverts of the IP editor's removal; however I will say there doesn't seem to be much mention of the relevant pseudoscience in the body of the article, just the one shout-out of Theosophy/Anthroposophy under the "18th, 19th and early 20th centuries" section. DiodotusNicator (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yup, because "pseudoscience" is a relatively new concept (it appeared since 1844 in the scientific literature). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess my question is whether the pseudoscience mention is really due in the first paragraph of the lead, given that the body has just one statement akin to "Theosophy/Anthroposophy, which are descendants of Western Esotericism, are pseudoscientific". I'm not experienced with WP:FRINGE but my impression is that "occultism" would be more accurate than "pseudoscience" here when describing "stuff the Western esoteric tradition has influenced" DiodotusNicator (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I would really like to see an argument that the statement "Western esotericism It has influenced, or contributed to, various forms of pseudoscience" is false while maintaining that it has contributed to religion and science. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the statement is false, I'm sharing my impression of the scholarship regarding Western esotericism, which is that the tradition's influence on "pseudoscience" is a significantly less-notable fraction of its influence on "occultism" - this is demonstrated by the extent of coverage devoted to these topics in the body of the article: the single sentence I mentioned above, which is sandwiched between discussions of the tradition's influence on occult movements.

With regards to "science", I really wouldn't know, and I don't think anyone interested in this subject cares about the influence of, say, Hermes Trismegistus or Aleister Crowley on modern academic science specifically. But I would like to point out that, for many of the ancient/early modern writers at the ground floor of "Western esotericism", there was not really much difference between the study of religion as such and what you and I would call science: see Pythagoreanism or Hermeticism. The latter is a good example of an -ism with elements that can surely be called "pseudoscience" from a modern academic perspective, but is likely better described by "occultism" or "mysticism". It would be anachronistic and certainly undue to call the work of Paracelsus, for example, pseudoscientific. DiodotusNicator (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Asprem, Egil (2015). "Dis/unity of Knowledge: Models for the Study of Modern Esotericism and Science" (PDF). Numen. Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library. guys already got 3 works cited in the article so i assume a decent source if needed. fiveby(zero) 02:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, this is interesting stuff and IMO, supportive of my argument above that "pseudoscience" is probably not due in the first paragraph.

• "...the only role left for esoteric cultural systems is as antique curiosa that only misguided “pseudoscientists” would continue to take seriously...Yet historical evidence reveals a much more complex picture. Long after the Enlightenment, attempts to synthesize esoteric and scientific knowledge have been carried out not only by “fringe‐science” amateurs or occultist obscurantists lacking a proper understanding of modern science, but by cutting‐edge professional scientists as well."

• Note "occultist obscurantists" - this is what I mean by saying "pseudoscience" could probably be better replaced by "occultism", as it's specifically these occultist obscurantists' mumbo-jumbo about aether and whatnot that's being referenced by "pseudoscience" in the disputed lead sentence. The influence on occultism is way more notable than the influence on modern occultists' pseudoscientific theories (which are, IMO, not particularly notable at all.)

• "...the fact remains that those who produce the New Age science discourse are not coming from some pseudoscientific margin far removed from the world of academia, but straight out of our best institutions of higher education."

• I would also add that what this sentence describes has been going on since Ficino published his translations of the Hermetica, Plato, and the Neoplatonists, examples include John Dee or the Cambridge Platonists

DiodotusNicator (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable argument, but i'm on shaky ground. I think you might have a tough row to hoe making it here were editors are constantly dealing with both the "fringe‐science" amateurs and the professional scientists. fiveby(zero) 03:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm interested in reading what @Tgeorgescu or @Guy Macon think of this source, and whether they would accept replacing "pseudoscience" with "occultism" in the lead paragraph as a matter of WP:WEIGHT. The article covers over two millennia of intellectual history and contains a single sentence about pseudoscience. DiodotusNicator (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Let's look at another source:

"ALONG WITH NOTIONS OF ESOTERICISM, scholars have frequently employed the concept of 'pseudoscience' to describe forms of knowledge production in Nazi Germany. Indeed, these two concepts overlap in important ways. Both refer to approaches that contemporaries regarded as legitimate pathways to understanding concepts of Volk and Rasse, but that postwar scholars have since interpreted as evidence of the irrationality of Nazi ideology. Moreover, both implicated a wide range of pursuits that historians now characterize as unscientific. But where practitioners of esotericism often valued it as a form of 'antiscience' with a focus on deriving knowledge from a nonmaterial realm, scientists used the term pseudoscience pejoratively to describe any approach falsely claiming scientific authority through a nominal or flawed engagement with empirical methods. In practice, of course, these distinctions are not always easy to draw, and the overlapping valency between such esoteric fields as parapsychology or dowsing and putatively pseudoscientific praxis in the Third Reich raise questions about the ways in which culture, politics, and social convention have historically played a role in determining what science is and which approaches are acceptable or unacceptable."

There is also the aspect of what the True Believers claim to by part of esotericism. See . --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

After I pointed out that the Institute holds anti-science positions, linking the section in our article that lists them, the people I discussed started deleting stuff from that section. This should be closely watched. --10:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks like the removed content dealt with public policy positions on renewable energy subsidies and fracking (based on V). You want sources to restore that paragraph, or to describe Manhattan Institute taking and "anti-science" position? I doubt they hold an "anti-science" position, but could maybe find sources which state they are employing "bad science" or ignoring or misapplying research to reach their policy goals.

Public policy positions such as opposition to government subsidies for renewable energy are not automatically "anti-science", but content where the positions are uninformed or informed by bad science would be appropriate i think. fiveby(zero) 12:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)